If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Obama recess appoints consumer bureau chief

Originally Posted by jackoroe

Now you allude to the Keynesian model which has been discredited everywhere but here for some reason. Over $5 Trillion in new debt and we still have 8 1/2% unemployment and GDP of something less than 2%. The only inconvenient fact is that Obama's economic policies are a complete disaster. And please, spare me the "It would have been much worse" tripe. You cannot quantify it, so it is little more than mental masturbation.

You're being deceptive here: "Over $5 Trillion in new debt and we still have 8 1/2% unemployment and GDP of something less than 2%."

That $5 trn is not all related to Keynsian notions -- only about .8 trn is... and arguably only about .3 trn.

BTW, quite a few economists have in fact "quantified it".

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Obama recess appoints consumer bureau chief

A truly free market would have prevented any of this from ever happening.

No -- a free market is only a requisite; it is not sufficient. A free market which operates fairly and justly rests on it being operated by men of character in high positions.

That the banking sector lacks men of character is amply demonstrated by the bestowing of ample bonuses to people who had screwed us all.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Obama recess appoints consumer bureau chief

Originally Posted by jackoroe

In a free market, banks don't make loans to people based on stated income. They can only make money on loans if people repay them. Therefore, they will require that you have a job, meet lending guidelines and have a sufficient down payment to protect their interests.

Government regulation distorts the marketplace.

This is oversimplified.

The bankers made bad loans deliberately, not because the government coerced them, but because they figured out a way to pass the risk on to others at a profit. They did as Soviet contractors did in apartment buildings: fill the structure with crap, and cover it with the appearance of high quality, and move on before disaster strikes.

Yes, government regulation distorts the marketplace. But it only does so for the same reason it is often needed: humans tend to be unscrupulous. The old adage about power corrupting does not apply solely to government -- if it did, the Roman Catholic Church would be the epitome of humble, sacrificial service such that the world would be in awe.

The answer isn't really government regulation, it's to correct the problem of "too big to fail" -- the banks that hosed us all should have been broken into pieces sufficiently small that their failure wouldn't even make a ripple in the national economy. Let the pieces compete, and hope those with integrity come out on top. But acting to ensconce the deceptive in their places is damaging to the Republic.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Obama recess appoints consumer bureau chief

Not considering his support for and previous relationship with Obama. Its one of those nice little conflict of interest arguments that call into question his judgement.

But, like I said, there's a pretty large disagreement within the constitutional scholar community about it, so saying that one is right and the other isn't (for both sides) isn't a fair assessment.

Have you got a source that actually lays out arguments from precedent? Tribe shows that the Senate itself as an institution basically agrees with Obama's position, and that will heavily weigh any decision.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Obama recess appoints consumer bureau chief

Originally Posted by jackoroe

The problem is they aren't facts. Bush was a profligate spender, make no mistake. He took the debt from about $5 trillion to a scad over $10 trillion (not $13 as you claim) in eight years. But Obama has gone from the $10 trillion number to over $15 trillion and $16 trillion is but a few months away. What's truly horrible is he's done this in less than three years!

Obama is spending $5 billion every single day that we do not have. He's borrowing it from the Chinese. By comparison Bush seems downright thrifty when he was spending $1.66 billion per day that we didn't have. Obama is Bush times three!

Now you allude to the Keynesian model which has been discredited everywhere but here for some reason. Over $5 Trillion in new debt and we still have 8 1/2% unemployment and GDP of something less than 2%. The only inconvenient fact is that Obama's economic policies are a complete disaster. And please, spare me the "It would have been much worse" tripe. You cannot quantify it, so it is little more than mental masturbation.

Now Barry has claimed that raising the debt ceiling is "unpatriotic" then he demands it be done. He promised to close Gitmo on entering his new office. Not only is it still open, but he's now allowed to send Americans with whom he disagrees with there. No trials, no bail, no charges. He complained about Bush's use of the signing statement, yet uses it himself. He's allowed his Department of Justice to furnish weapons to Mexican drug gangs, at taxpayer expense. These weapons kill scores of Mexicans and one US Border agent, Brian Terry. The attorney general hasn't only not been fired for being either wittingly or not an incompetent gun running criminal, Barry supports this idiot whole heartedly! In fact, no one has been fired or charged for this blatantly illegal conduct. Is that not even a little troubling?

So, please help me out. Why should I not hold someone who behaves in such a reckless, irresponsible and unconstitutional manner in contempt? Why, when I'm told that my rights as an American citizen are contingent on the good will of any president, that I should not call such a despot a Fucktard?

Keynesian economics has only been discredited in right-wing lala land. You know, that place where facts don't matter, only unbridled rage and magical thinking matter. You know, that place where people used to ride dinosaurs, slashing taxes and going to war brings the deficit down, and giving huge tax breaks to the 1% leads to robust economic growth.

As far as the deficit, don't get so hysterical about it. Just understand it. Here's a good start:

Re: Obama recess appoints consumer bureau chief

The recess appointment is a ridiculous argument. The congress was in session for 35 seconds.

As far as Republicans and compromise? Some of the more logical and moderate voices are still saying that the right should be compromising their way to solutions for America. They will not and are not and I hope it earns them less of a seat at the table in the next house.

Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Re: Obama recess appoints consumer bureau chief

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

Have you got a source that actually lays out arguments from precedent? Tribe shows that the Senate itself as an institution basically agrees with Obama's position, and that will heavily weigh any decision.

Regardless of what the senate as an institution believes, the issue lies in the fact that the President believes that he has the authority to determine whether or not part of the legislature is in session, when that body itself has determined that it is. The constitutionality of the recess appointment itself is not in question; what IS is whether he had any right to make such an appointment considering that the Senate (which has the right to set its own rules) had not adjourned. He is forced to, whether he likes it or not, abide by the determination of the senate on their own status. He did not do so.

(ridiculous as the senate's position is, the separation of powers is very clear here)

Re: Obama recess appoints consumer bureau chief

The housing bubble was caused in part by the government convincing banks to make loans to people who could not afford to pay them back. The government thinks everyone should own a house

Ironically, and I'm sure you're unaware of it, under a laissez-faire (sometimes called the free market) system, banks would never have made these bad loans because the government would not have cajoled banks into making them and certainly wouldn't have guaranteed them.

A truly free market would have prevented any of this from ever happening.

And true, I have to "call the Democrats out" on that mindset, weren't Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank the strongest proponents of the "find a way to loan money to almost anybody" plan? (I'm relying on a-few-years-old memory here...)

Originally Posted by hotatlboi

Nonsense. The banks were eager to make predatory loans because the interest was making them tons of money. They were not reluctant.

And the most serious problem that caused the financial collapse was not the loans themselves but the way they were allowed to be leveraged and marketed. Some additional oversight was sorely needed to prevent the pure deceit that the large investment houses knowingly engaged in.

Without the Government strongly encouraging (demanding?) that banks make these loans - which, in the end, ended up bringing in millions of "NINJA loans," I don't think it was on the banks' radar that they could profit from bogus/bad loans. However, after being told they should make those weak loans, and then finding out that they could STILL stealthily sell worthless paper to bankers and investors at levels far above the original lending banks, they went for broke, so to speak. I don't think that the government ever encouraged them to go as far as the "NINJA loans (officially known, in the industry as SISA loans - Stated Income, Stated Assets). The lower banks were pleasantly surprised when they realized they could sell even THAT shit to the investors.

But the people who are comparing Bush and Obama deficits, I find it interesting how the pro-Bush people attribute the $700somethingbillion first bailout to Obama, and how the pro-Obama people attribute it to Bush. (The truth is that it was BUSH who signed it.)

"Some people without brains do an awful lot of talking." -The Scarecrow, WIZARD OF OZ, 1939Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education, to under-performing schools: DROP DEAD.Make, for a man, a fire - and he'll be warm for a few hours. Set a man afire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.Satire is meant to ridicule power. If you are laughing at people who are hurting, it's not satire, it's bullying. - Terry Pratchett

Re: Obama recess appoints consumer bureau chief

Originally Posted by JB3

Regardless of what the senate as an institution believes, the issue lies in the fact that the President believes that he has the authority to determine whether or not part of the legislature is in session, when that body itself has determined that it is. The constitutionality of the recess appointment itself is not in question; what IS is whether he had any right to make such an appointment considering that the Senate (which has the right to set its own rules) had not adjourned. He is forced to, whether he likes it or not, abide by the determination of the senate on their own status. He did not do so.

(ridiculous as the senate's position is, the separation of powers is very clear here)

You're arguing that the letter of the law takes precedent over the spirit of the law. When applied to the Constitution, that tends to turn the document into a suicide pact; it is a view the courts have frowned on. The Constitution is a document written by reasonable men for reasonable men, and has to be interpreted reasonably when there are conflicts emerging from within.

And in determining such things, the courts indeed look at precedent, especially precedent from times when those involved weren't deciding things according to ideological partisan agendas -- those being presumed to be more reasonable. So it's a pretty sound guess that if this goes to the courts, they're going to decide according to what the Senate itself has said for a very long time.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Obama recess appoints consumer bureau chief

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

You're arguing that the letter of the law takes precedent over the spirit of the law. When applied to the Constitution, that tends to turn the document into a suicide pact; it is a view the courts have frowned on. The Constitution is a document written by reasonable men for reasonable men, and has to be interpreted reasonably when there are conflicts emerging from within.

And in determining such things, the courts indeed look at precedent, especially precedent from times when those involved weren't deciding things according to ideological partisan agendas -- those being presumed to be more reasonable. So it's a pretty sound guess that if this goes to the courts, they're going to decide according to what the Senate itself has said for a very long time.

...Which is that the Senate determines its rules, and the President has no authority to decide for himself anything having to do with them. In other words, the default position going into any case is going to be that the Senate was in session, and the President is going to have to prove otherwise. (which is an impossible task, given that Pro Forma sessions are part of the Senate rules)

Re: Obama recess appoints consumer bureau chief

Originally Posted by JB3

...Which is that the Senate determines its rules, and the President has no authority to decide for himself anything having to do with them. In other words, the default position going into any case is going to be that the Senate was in session, and the President is going to have to prove otherwise. (which is an impossible task, given that Pro Forma sessions are part of the Senate rules)

You didn't read Tribe's efforts, did you?

Precedent is that when the Senate is not in town doing business, it's in recess -- that precedent having been set down by the Senate over generations.

The recent invention by Democrats of pro-forma sessions in order to try to dodge the provisions of the Constitution, and its gleeful adoption by Republicans whose goal isn't to govern but to make governing as difficult as possible, is a blip on the radar.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Obama recess appoints consumer bureau chief

Precedent is that when the Senate is not in town doing business, it's in recess -- that precedent having been set down by the Senate over generations.

The recent invention by Democrats of pro-forma sessions in order to try to dodge the provisions of the Constitution, and its gleeful adoption by Republicans whose goal isn't to govern but to make governing as difficult as possible, is a blip on the radar.